Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 166 of 208 (507088)
05-01-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by bluescat48
05-01-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
'It would surely help if people did that instead of looking at it through 21st century eyes.'
There will always be a faction or factions unable to resist doing so. For one thing, to treat the Bible as a science textbook subjects it to inapplicable criticism. For another, to make the basis of a belief system based on personal trust an intellectual one by itself makes it Christian only in name, lacking the motivation to effect personal moral change. Thirdly, the view of creation in six literal days with a day of rest supports a very part-time mock version of Christianity based on a 'sabbath' or 'Lord's day', which observance is inimical to Christianity.
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by bluescat48, posted 05-01-2009 11:32 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 167 of 208 (507253)
05-03-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Rahvin
04-29-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Rahvin writes:
Still, scientists are working on artificial blood - that is, an alternative means of carrying nutrients to the body, so that blood donations will no longer be required.
they've already done that
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2009 11:59 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Michamus, posted 05-03-2009 1:14 PM Peg has replied
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 05-03-2009 2:13 PM Peg has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 168 of 208 (507282)
05-03-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Peg
05-03-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Peg writes:
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
And those would be...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 7:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 7:02 AM Michamus has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 169 of 208 (507293)
05-03-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Peg
05-03-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
they've already done that
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
...doesn't that completely refute the idea that "the life is in the blood?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 7:01 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 170 of 208 (507356)
05-04-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Michamus
05-03-2009 1:14 PM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
eg, Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc
all stuff they use to increase fluid volume

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Michamus, posted 05-03-2009 1:14 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2009 7:37 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 172 by bluescat48, posted 05-04-2009 8:20 AM Peg has replied
 Message 173 by Michamus, posted 05-04-2009 10:49 PM Peg has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 171 of 208 (507359)
05-04-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
05-04-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
"The life is in the Ringer's?"
I like it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 7:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 172 of 208 (507362)
05-04-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
05-04-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Peg writes:
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
Michamus writes:
And those would be...?
Peg writes:
Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc
all stuff they use to increase fluid volume
So are you dsaying one should get rid of blood a replace it with
Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex....
Edited by bluescat48, : quote goof
Edited by bluescat48, : ditto
Edited by bluescat48, : dittto ouch!!!

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Peg, posted 05-06-2009 5:16 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 173 of 208 (507427)
05-04-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
05-04-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Peg writes:
eg, Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc
You claimed there to be blood replacements that are better than normal blood... Still waiting for you to list me some.
{Hint: Everything you listed there is either for a dehydrated patient, or a volume expander.
For instance:
Peg writes:
Saline
(Normal Saline or NS) a .9% saline to water ratio used for dehydrated patients
Peg writes:
Ringers solution
(Lactated Ringers Solution or LR) an electrolyte rich fluid used for extremely dehydrated, or burn patients.
Peg writes:
Destrose saline
(Dextrose Saline or DxS) a solution containing 5% glucose which the body's cellular tissue can metabolize as energy (typically used with LR)
Peg writes:
Hypotonic Saline
Hypertonic Saline - used in treating hyponatremia and cerebral edema
Peg writes:
Rheomacrodex
Dextran based Plasma volume expander
Peg writes:
Macrodex
Another Dextran base Plasma volume expander
Peg writes:
Gelafusine
A protein based volume expander that works on the capillary level
Peg writes:
Darrows solution
Potassium rich fluid used in patients with potassium deficiency
Peg writes:
Hartmanns solution
Why did you list LR twice? Did you not think I would know the difference and become quickly overwhelmed at a longer list?
Peg writes:
all stuff they use to increase fluid volume
Yes, all of these listed items will increase fluid volume, but hey will not replace blood. Not one of these items is a blood replacement.
Do bear in mind that you are discussing this topic with a Combat Medic who has seen first hand the uses, and affects of ALL BUT TWO of these products (hypertonic saline and gelafusine). I have been thoroughly trained on IV therapy, and the various uses these fluid therapies provide.
Peg writes:
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
Now that we have established that there are NO CURRENT non-blood alternatives that perform the ACTUAL function of blood, we can move on.
(As I understand, there has been research done on synthetic blood replacement fluids, but the ringer came in the form of a massive increase in the patient's probability of heart attack, and various other undesirable cardiovascular conditions)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 7:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 174 of 208 (507514)
05-05-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by wisdom
12-21-2007 5:19 PM


Re: Qur'an and Science
I think this argument is out of the track of the topic. Nevertheless, I should tell Wisdom it’s not worth to lug the alleged reliability of the Kuran in this thread (if ever the administrators will permit us to continue to dialogue in this track I surely don’t back down from it). The Coranic theologists have yet a hard roe to hoe with, for example, their own doctrine nsikh and the manskh, that is, the annuller and the annulled, that permits some previous Coranic verses to be abrogated by later ones. This doctrine triggers a logical reaction that makes more difficult believing the dependability of this sacred text, since now the chronological order of the suras became essential to establish the non-abrogated section of the Kuran (but, sad to say, Coranic theologists are not agree until today to the exact chronological list of the Suras). So, when this agreement will be reached we may start to speak about the reliability of the Kuran, in another forum, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:19 PM wisdom has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 175 of 208 (507548)
05-06-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by bluescat48
05-04-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
bluescat48 writes:
So are you dsaying one should get rid of blood a replace it with
Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex....
sure why not?
apparently blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive...its just a fluid isnt it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bluescat48, posted 05-04-2009 8:20 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Michamus, posted 05-06-2009 5:40 AM Peg has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 176 of 208 (507552)
05-06-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Peg
05-06-2009 5:16 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Peg writes:
sure why not?
apparently blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive...its just a fluid isnt it?
Has your argument really become this desperate?
Not one individual here has said that "blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive". The statements thus far have been "Blood is merely one part of a matrix that collapses in the absence of any one part". Everyone that has eyes, and a brain knows that you die if you lose too much blood.
This includes the ancients. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to say... "Hey look, Joshua just died... maybe it has something to do with all the red liquid stuff that came out of him. I mean he was perfectly normal before it all started flowing out of him." It is only natural that they would conclude that an individuals life is dependent on the amount of blood they have.
The only difference is, they were not nearly as advanced as we are, and so they had no means of discovering that blood is not the only component necessary to sustain life.
My rebuttal to your ludicrous claim on Message 170 is evidence that blood is essential to life, but life is not dependent upon blood alone. If I were to remove your spine from C1 down, would you be able to continue living? Why not? After all, you still have the same amount of blood (assuming I could achieve zero blood loss during this feat)
What about the removal of you liver? Or your heart? What about the removal of your kidneys? Surely you could live if I removed your brain, or bone marrow?
The problem you are having here is that you refuse to accept that life is more than just the amount of blood something has. Rather than accepting that perhaps you were a little presumptuous in that observation, you would prefer to make yourself look the greater fool by making statements like the one above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Peg, posted 05-06-2009 5:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:47 AM Michamus has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 177 of 208 (507564)
05-06-2009 12:16 PM


Magical life-force
We know that, despite the claims of Peg and her literal reading of the Bible, blood has no special connection to life any more than the other myriad components of the human body. "The life" is no more "in the blood" than it is in the breath, or the lymph, or the cerebro-spinal fluid, all of which are also required for human life.
There is no magic wishy-washy "life force," in the blood or otherwise. This is a decidedly primitive view of life taken from a culture with only the most basic understanding of life and the human body. It's not a reflection of some profound truth, or even a miraculous "scientific" revelation from God. It's the result of the simple observation that sufficient blood loss causes death, and the extrapolation that blood must therefore be "special." Remember, in the remaining context of the Bible, blood is treated differently than other body parts or fluids - Jesus' blood is supposed to wash away sins; God demands animal blood sacrifice in the Old Testament.
But today, we know that life is not a magical energy field, or ethereal mist contained in living things. "Life" is simply a specific and complex set of self-replicating chemical processes; interruption of those chemical processes causes death, and that interruption can be caused through myriad ways, not limited to simply removing all blood from an animal.
Putting blood into an inanimate object does not give it life.
Most living things on the planet (plants, bacteria, insects, crustaceans, etc) do not have blood at all.
Human tissue can survive without blood given a substitute nutrient substrate (which is how we grow skin grafts and cell cultures).
Even the Bible seems conflicted, because in Genesis it seems that life is in breath:
quote:
Genesis
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
We know, of course, that there is no mystical "breath of life" either - but this demonstrates that the Bible is not making a profound revelation of scientific information when it says "the life is in the blood;" rather, it is promoting a common primitive view of what life is.
You cannot live without blood. But you also cannot live without your kidneys, or your liver, or your lungs, or your heart, or your immune system, or your lymphatic system, or your brain, or your spine, or your skeleton, or your skin, or your digestive system...
There is nothing special about blood relative to any of these other systems. The Bible is simply, flatly, incorrect, as would be expected of a text written by people with no real understanding of what constitutes life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Asteragros, posted 05-06-2009 5:57 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 181 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:51 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 178 of 208 (507607)
05-06-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rahvin
05-06-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Magical life-force
On the contrary, do you really understand what constitutes life? I’m sick and tired about discourses like: this text was writed for ancient gawks that didn’t know this or that. If this would be the point the future inhabitants of this planet (two or three centuries from now) will have to guffaw on our puerile views about, for example, physics (the 21th century primitive peoples didn’t comprehend in what physical context can be encapsulate the two apparently states of the light: wave or particle? What a simple men they were!). Granted, the Bible is a complex book, but this lofty attitude as regards the people that received this text is not useful at all. What we called science today has not a conclusive structure but a dynamic one. Paul Valry once said We have to call Science only the ensemble of the successful recipes. And all the rest of it is literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by bluescat48, posted 05-06-2009 6:10 PM Asteragros has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 179 of 208 (507608)
05-06-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Asteragros
05-06-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Magical life-force
Asteragros writes:
On the contrary, do you really understand what constitutes life? I’m sick and tired about discourses like: this text was writed for ancient gawks that didn’t know this or that. If this would be the point the future inhabitants of this planet (two or three centuries from now) will have to guffaw on our puerile views about, for example, physics (the 21th century primitive peoples didn’t comprehend in what physical context can be encapsulate the two apparently states of the light: wave or particle? What a simple men they were!). Granted, the Bible is a complex book, but this lofty attitude as regards the people that received this text is not useful at all. What we called science today has not a conclusive structure but a dynamic one. Paul Valry once said We have to call Science only the ensemble of the successful recipes. And all the rest of it is literature.
I would certainly hope that the future humans will consider us as archaic. If not then humans will have regressed . Throughout the civilized history of humans each succeeding era has thrown out archaic ideas or modified others. As long as this occurred civilization advances. The point is that the writings of a particular era reflect that era. When one tries to use this in a modern context then one gets to the problems that exist between ie: creationists & evolutionists.
Edited by bluescat48, : sp
Edited by bluescat48, : ditto

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Asteragros, posted 05-06-2009 5:57 PM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:45 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 180 of 208 (507657)
05-07-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Michamus
05-06-2009 5:40 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Michamus writes:
This includes the ancients. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to say... "Hey look, Joshua just died... maybe it has something to do with all the red liquid stuff that came out of him. I mean he was perfectly normal before it all started flowing out of him." It is only natural that they would conclude that an individuals life is dependent on the amount of blood they have.
Im sure not everyone died due to blood loss. People who where hung or stoned or drowned did not die due to blood loss.
So i dont think you could say thats why the bible writers wrote that 'life is in the blood'
there must have been more too it then that.
Michamus writes:
The problem you are having here is that you refuse to accept that life is more than just the amount of blood something has. Rather than accepting that perhaps you were a little presumptuous in that observation, you would prefer to make yourself look the greater fool by making statements like the one above.
The bible view is that blood is sacred to God. Can you prove otherwise?
btw, you need to lighten up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Michamus, posted 05-06-2009 5:40 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Michamus, posted 05-07-2009 8:50 AM Peg has replied
 Message 189 by purpledawn, posted 05-08-2009 12:43 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024